ingest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It explains deduplication logic, upsert behavior (new items created, non-terminal refreshed, terminal left alone), the preservation of triage, and the close_missing flag's effect. This goes far beyond simple 'syncs tasks.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise requirements and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from purpose to fields to behavior. Despite its length, it remains tight and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex sync/upsert tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key semantics: dedup key, required vs optional fields, upsert behavior on re-run, handling of terminal states, and close_missing. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the crucial item fields (external_id, title, optional fields), the role of source in dedup, and close_missing behavior. However, the top-level 'labels' and 'project' parameters are mentioned only implicitly within the optional item fields, leaving some room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Sync external items into tasks,' and immediately clarifies the deduplication key (source, external_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_task, which is for individual task creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through its focus on syncing/upserting batches, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_task or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.